There is a science of economics and a politics of economics. The problem a lot of us have is expecting the two to agree, but it seems when it comes to politics, the science is often strong-armed and then thrown out the window.

changed quite recently into forms that are barely understandable... deemed valuable because they were made from precious metals like gold and silver.

Seems it's "barely understandable" because the authors barely understand why gold and silver are considered "precious" - this is the first mistake in the article. Precious metals are considered precious for the same reason that dollars are made of "precious paper" - they are precious primarily because people use it as a medium of exchange. If people didn't use dollars or gold as money, then both the dollars and gold would be valued a lot less than they are now.

If you really want dollars to be worth something tangible, you might back it with, for example, bushels of wheat instead.

There are some economies, like city states, that are still generations behind being technologically capable of supporting themselves, so they have to import agriculture.

If it is possible for a finance bubble to allow a city state to support many people with imports, it is also possible for a consumer electronics bubble to build up a country's ability to also support a lot more people with imports. If global taste for consumer electronics fall, then that country may be in trouble. Whether this is true for Japan, it is hard to say, but if it is true, and if Japan is not capable of surviving without imports, then any economic policy will have to take into account economies outside Japan - while they still have some amount of financial strength, enter into both investment and immigration partnerships with agricultural nations - investment to help those nations be able to produce more for both sides, and immigration relationships to help cement a more permanent alliance between the two regions.

China has been an authoritarian society for a long time. Many Western governments, at least officially, are actually moving towards levels of authoritarianism similar to the Chinese - even as internet growth in these societies are creating growing tension with authoritarian forces - for example, Snowden and Assange versus the forces that want them silenced.

That seems to be the real clash of civilizations in the modern age. The decentralizing influence of internet is posing a new challenge to the old forces of hierarchy - and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_%28psychology%29 is often resulting in the older generation becoming more authoritarian in response. But in a few decades, those who grew up without the internet will pass on.

Greece is just part of the money laundering pipeline. The money starts from X, is sent through Greece in order to appear legit, then fed back into their final destination: banks outside Greece. Greece is just the convenient scapegoat. The money is meant to save banks outside Greece.

Good thing open letters to world leaders are open. I'm pretty tired of everyone pinning the blame for austerity on Merkel. It's pretty obvious many world "leaders" just do what their handlers tell them.

The medical profession is a matter of life and death, and involves many moral issues. Political science often results in life and death, and we accept that it deals with moral issues. Law enforcement and military deployments deal with life and death, and the moral issues involved have resulted in rules of engagement.

If there is only one discipline that deals with life and death, yet does not involve moral concerns, then that discipline is immoral.

What upsets people is that some of our revealed preferences aren't very flattering, like the fact that in the U.S. anyone with a pet values that pet more than feed/clothing/sheltering all the poor people in their area/country/world.

The poor person doesn't care about your pet, but his preferences don't count because he doesn't have enough money to affect market prices.

This is what happens when you put people who don't understand economics in charge of the economy. On the other hand, people who don't understand economics have pretty much always been in charge of the economy. It seems the more politics is affected by a science, the more politics gets in the way of the development of that science.